Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cfu_mail

cfu_mail

by MrShurukan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

soap_connection_check

Read-only

Verify Carbonio SOAP login credentials and retrieve the server version to validate mail server connectivity while keeping authentication tokens inside the local process.

Instructions

Check Carbonio SOAP login and server version; tokens never leave this process.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "account_id": "<account_id>"
    },
    "name": "soap_connection_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
account_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, non-destructive, open-world check. The description adds a useful privacy behavior (tokens never leave this process), but it does not explain authentication requirements, failure behavior, or what the check actually returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single tightly written sentence with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded and the privacy note adds useful context without bloating the definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only diagnostic tool with annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits what account_id means and, since there is no output schema, does not describe what the check returns.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is one required account_id parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The schema only supplies a bare title, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and object: checking Carbonio SOAP login and server version. It is clearly a diagnostic check, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling connection_check tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as connection_check. The intended use is only implied by the purpose statement, with no exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools